Facts

In her complaint Lilian alleged that joint elements of the SAF and the HPG conspired in carrying out a plan
to kill her husband, Alfonso “Jun” S. De Vera (Jun) and their 7–year–old daughter, Lia Allana. Lilian said
that at around 9:30 p.m. on December 5, 2008 she called Jun to tell him that she was on her way to
Pasay City to meet him and their daughter. She got to Pasay City but the two did not show up. After an
hour, Lilian called their house helper who assured her that Jun and Lia had already left. Lilian tried calling
Jun but she got no answer. She again called their house helper, who informed her that there had been a
shootout in their subdivision.

Lilian decided to go home. When she arrived at the entrance of their subdivision, the police had blocked
the area and did not allow civilians to pass through. She got a call from her house helper who told her that
Jun and Lia had been involved in the shootout. A certain Hilario Indiana approached Lilian and advised her
to go to the hospital where Lia had been rushed. When she got there, she learned that Lia had died of
gunshot wound on the head. Jun was found dead near a passenger jeepney with a gunshot wound on his
head.

Witnesses to the shootout said that Jun and Lia were riding in his Isuzu Crosswind van when police officers
wearing Regional SAF vests suddenly fired at the van. Jun got out, went to the passenger side, and tried
to carry Lia out to safety as she had been wounded. The police officers went after Jun, however, and shot
him on the head.

Issues

1. Whether or not the CA erred in granting the OSG’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65, given that the
RTC’s order of dismissal is a final and appealable order;

2. Whether or not the CA erred in counting the prescriptive period for filing a Rule 65 petition from the
time of receipt of the court order by the OSG rather than by the city prosecutor’s office; and

3. Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge in holding
that no probable cause exists against petitioner HPG officers and in dismissing the criminal charge against
them.

Ruling:

The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case against petitioner HPG officers. Section 6, Rule
112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge “may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause.” The CA should have denied the People’s
petition for special civil action of certiorari that assails the correctness of the order of dismissal since
Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that such action is available only when “there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

The fact, however, is that Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides that an appeal may be taken in a
criminal action from a judgment or final order like the RTC’s order dismissing the case against petitioner
HPG officers for lack of probable cause. It is a final order since it disposes of the case, terminates the
proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do with respect to the case against petitioner
HPG officers. The Court had made a similar pronouncement in Santos v. Orda, Jr, Of course, the People
may refile the case if new evidence adduced in another preliminary investigation will support the filing of a
new information against them. But that is another matter. For now, the CA clearly erred in not denying
the petition for being a wrong remedy.

Petitioner HPG officers point out that, assuming the propriety of the filing of a special civil action of
certiorari against the RTC’s order of dismissal, the People had sixty days from receipt of such order within
which to file the action. Here, the People filed its petition for certiorari 112 days from receipt of the
dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Paranaque, clearly beyond the 60–day period allowed for such
action.

The Court REVERSES the Court of Appeals Decision and ORDERS the DISMISSAL of the charge against the
petitioners.